The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1887-10-31
HOUSE DRAINAGE.
DR. Duncan's Ordinance With Regard
to it Further Criticized.

DR.. Duncan'S Ordinance With Regard
to it Further Criticized.
Editor Morning Nel0S: 1t is proper for
me, in the opening of this article, to say in
an explanatory way, that neither my first
protest against the Duncan ordinance, nor
what | shall herein say, were animated by
any unblud feelings toward any member of
| Counci-no one realizing more truly than |,
| that Council have, III a somewhat blindfold
| manner, made a move in the right direction,
but by grievously wrong pathway. Their
| intentions were good, but their conclusions
| ill-advised and mistaken.
The Duncan ordinance requires every one
| having bathroom, or closet, or vault
| lCithin 300 feet Of q se,cer to connect Nth
| the SeWer bU March, 1889, "or the city" will
make such connection for him, and collect
the expense ont of his property by levy, sale,
etc. How the city can make a law affecting
a lot within 300 feet Of a sewer, and such a
| law be constitutional, passes my cOmpre-
hension. Laws to be constitutional, must
operate on all alike: but here we have So
| called law for a lot within 300 feet of a sew
er and not for q lot 400 or 800 feet from it.
should like to hear Mayor Lester's opinion
on the constitutIonality Of this ordinance, in
relation to this point The second grave
objection to the ordinance is that Council
had no legal power or right to pass it, and
in a legal sense it is utterly null and Uotd.
| The Legislature of Georgia enacted law
empowering the Mayor and Aldermen to
lay down a system of pipes for house drains,
in lanes where lanes existed, and in streets
| or alleys where no lanes existed, and to
charge the expense pro Tot0 ON the lots
ubtttiuq the two sides Of such lane, street
or alley, the cross street intersections alone
being chargeable to the city as body. That
is, the thirty feet OF such central lane pipe
in lon hai,
is chargeable to me and my neighbor across
the lane, whose house fronts on Hull street..
If there is any clause permitting the City
Council to make me carry my drain pipe
any further than to the central tame house
drain behind my lot l have never seen or
heard of it. And / don't think Council
have either Yet Council, in the Duncan
ordinance, claims the right to force the lot
owner to make connection with q se1UeT
300 feet away % instead of doing its own
legal duty under the law and laying down
the central lane pipe this 800 feet of distance
and assessing each ones shares or twentieth
part on each owner of 30 feet AUDITING.
My third objection to the Duncan ordi-
nance is that. under appearance of doing
something, it posupones to a distant day the
doing of anything, and thus leaves the
present system of denominations i'll fertile
continuance of their deadly work. The or
dnance puts Off doing anything until
March, 1889, and as spring then comes on,
the excuse will be given that ii won't do to
turn up the soiln in warm weather. So
there will be another poStponement until
cold heather, or 1890, and the word of
promise held to our ears will be broken TO
our hopes I do not wish TO impute
to Council such motireS, but Ger
tainly the delay of three years
already in thinking of beginning, and the
further postponement of such beginning for
two or three years more, justifies me in ask
ing Council what they really mean.
My fourth objection TO the Duncan ordi-
nance is that the system continued by it
would cost the lot owners half million
dollars and still be an dbOmindtiOn, whilst
the system created and provided for by
act of the Legislature and the only system
the Mayor and Aldermen have any legal
right to enforce, would scarcely cost one
fourth as much, and would be at the same
time infinitely safer and more healthy.
My fifth objection to the Duncan ordi-
nance is that it leaves out altogether any
| provision for flushing and cleansing the